doc2x_parse_image_layout_wait_text

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it's a blocking/waiting operation ('wait...until success'), it returns specific output ('first page markdown'), and it has caching logic ('reuse an in-process cached uid'). It doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, but covers the core operational flow well.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficiently structured in two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and output. The second sentence provides crucial usage guidance for the two main parameters. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the waiting behavior, output format, and parameter interplay. It could be more complete by mentioning what happens on failure or the format of the returned markdown, but it covers the essential context given the complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50% (uid and image_path have descriptions, poll_interval_ms and max_wait_ms do not). The description adds significant value by explaining the semantic relationship between uid and image_path: uid is preferred to avoid resubmission, while image_path triggers either cache reuse or new submission. This clarifies parameter usage beyond the basic schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Wait for an image-layout parse task until success') and the resource involved ('first page markdown'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like doc2x_parse_image_layout_submit (which submits) and doc2x_parse_image_layout_status (which checks status) by emphasizing waiting for completion and returning output.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Prefer passing uid (no re-submit)' indicates when to use uid over image_path, and it explains the alternative flow when only image_path is provided (reuse cached uid or submit new task). This directly addresses when to use this tool versus its submit sibling.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.